Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

y0da1927 t1_j4r0zov wrote

>Or an example of competition in no way benefitting the consumer.

They get nice shit when they study. That's definitely a benefit.

Seems like kids want nice shit more than they want cheap school. Otherwise most of these private schools wouldn't exist, everyone would go to Suny Binghamton for 4k/yr not Syracuse for $40k.

The consumer does not seem to be too concerned with cost during the selection process.

1

Robot_Basilisk t1_j4sennw wrote

Except there is no alternative. There are no cheap, no-frills schools that let the consumer choose an education without all the amenities.

There are, however, tons of Midwestern state schools that have absolutely garbage amenities but still cost $24k per year to attend.

You'd think you're going to the no-frills, affordable universities because the dorms are from the 70s and full of mold, the single cafeteria seats about 100-200 at a time, most of the desks are from the 1960s, and the carpet hasn't been replaced anywhere since the 1980s, but then the bill comes due and it's still 70+% what the best state schools charge.

Because they know students have no other options. And there is zero incentive for anyone to come along and "compete" by opening a cheaper school, an endeavor that would cost millions of dollars just to get off the ground. Who would spend millions just to charge less?

What is the capitalist answer to this?

3

y0da1927 t1_j4sm5ss wrote

Community college. Online school, or go to another country. A better accreditation system would help as currently the colleges themselves get to gate keep who can offer classes and how.

But there are affordable schools out there. Cuny Brooklyn is like 5k tuition for example.

1

Robot_Basilisk t1_j4umn65 wrote

You can't get a premed degree, an engineering degree, or an MBA from a community college.

Online colleges are sketchy, still expensive, lacking in even more amenities, and suffer from low credibility..

Traveling abroad costs money, and the way most developed nations subsidize universities to keep costs down without flooding them with students is by increasing the required to get in and stay in school, so you're asking Americans to spend thousands of dollars to move abroad and apply to foreign universities and pass much more rigorous entrance and pacekeeping exams after going through the declining American school system. That's also hardly viable for most people.

Instead, we can just use the same solution most other nations have worked all of the kinks and bugs out of: Subsidize higher education with tax dollars, regulate the prices universities may charge, and increase academic rigor at universities to ensure that nobody without the will and the aptitude to succeed enrolls.

That last part serves the dual purpose of revitalizing community colleges and trade schools as more students accept that 4-year universities aren't aligned with their goals instead of going just because it's the thing to do.

2-year degrees and trade schools are often treated like consolation prizes in America. As if only those whose lives haven't panned out would ever end up there because everyone with their shit together gets a bachelor's degree.

We can change that by emphasizing with entry testing that 4-year degrees are highly specialized and intended for those interested in more academic or design-based work; and that those without those goals can and should instead pursue 2-year programs. By making 4-year degrees more selective we can also discourage employers from scorning a 2-year degree that meets every requirement for the job role.

Again: These problems have proven solutions that have been employed for decades all over the developed world. America need not reinvent the wheel.

1

y0da1927 t1_j4v3lqc wrote

Those who go to school earn a sufficiently high wage premium that they do not require subsidization. End of story.

If they want a budget option they are available.

I see no reason to give future high earners tens of thousands of public dollars and have the public assume all the risk if they fail. Figure it out for yourself or don't go.

The problems have not been solved in other countries. They are just hiding in bloated government spending that benefits only high earners and shifts all the risk to the public. Hard pass.

−1

Robot_Basilisk t1_j4wyui2 wrote

>Those who go to school earn a sufficiently high wage premium that they do not require subsidization. End of story.

You destroyed your credibility in record time.

Stop vomiting up tired old talking points that don't address anything I said. You are unfathomably wrong on this, to the point that it's staggering.

Every single data point says the US is the one with a bloated, broken system that puts all the risk on the public and we're about to face a crisis over it.

No other developed country is struggling this badly or facing this much risk from higher education. For reasons I spoonfed to you but you chose to ignore.

Grow up. Pull your head out of the sand. Go study the topic before pushing your pre-canned Boomer rhetoric on others. End of story.

0

y0da1927 t1_j4x1h4a wrote

1